Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:


After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.

UK: Defence firm loses domain case against cannabis site

Out-Law.com

Tuesday 01 May 2007

---
Defence company Lockheed Martin Corporation has lost its attempt to gain
control of a web address currently hosting a site devoted to cannabis
paraphernalia. The ruling on the .co.uk domain was an appeal from an
earlier ruling.

The case was heard by one panellist under the dispute resolution process
of Nominet, the registry for .uk domains. Lockheed Martin lost and
appealed, but has now failed in its appeal before a three person panel.

The domain ukskunkworks.co.uk is owned by UKSkunkworks Ltd, a company
which sells cannabis seeds and smoking paraphernalia related to
cannabis. Skunk is a slang term for a particularly strong strain of
cannabis.

Lockheed Martin tried to gain control of the domain because it has in
times of war operated a secret laboratory developing new products which
it called Skunk Works. It owns several UK and Community trade marks
related to the term.

Lockeed Martin claimed in its case that UKSkunkworks registered the
domain in order to disrupt its business, and that it was a blocking
tactic. It said that the registration would cause consumer confusion.

The panel found that such claims were unlikely, since the term 'skunk
works' was not a well known one in the UK, and certainly not one
immediately associated with Lockheed Martin.

"The Complainant [Lockheed Martin]'s arguments rely heavily on the fame
of its use of the name ‘skunk works’, attested by a collection of
articles from magazines. Underlying these three contentions there
appears to be an assumption by the Complainant that this fame is such
that anyone seeing the name must have prior awareness of Lockheed
Martin's use," said the panel in its ruling. "The Panel’s view is that
at least in the United Kingdom, there is no such general awareness."

"The Respondent says that he had never heard of the Complainant or its
subsidiaries before being contacted about the Name," it said.
"Furthermore, the general lack of awareness in the UK of the
Complainant’s use of the name means that users of the Respondent’s
website would be highly unlikely to associate it in any way with the
Complainant."

The panel was scathing about Lockheed Martin's claim that UKSkunkworks'
business was illegitimate and designed to damage it.

"It has not been shown by the Complainant that the activities of the
Complainant are illegal or that the Respondent has been prosecuted for
illegal activities," it said. "Naturally, the Panel can sympathise with
LMC’s desire to avoid association with activities that people may object
to, even if the activities are within the law."

"Lockheed Martin’s original use of the name ‘skunk works’ was humorous,
and a sense of humour may be appropriate to this situation," said the
ruling. "There may be some comfort for Lockheed Martin in the fact that
many people have as little wish to be associated with military aircraft
as have Lockheed Martin to be associated with illegal drug use. The risk
of ‘contamination by association’ therefore seems low."

Lockheed Martin listed a number of decisions of the World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO)'s dispute resolution panels which had gone
in its favour in support of its case. The Nominet panel, though, noted
that these panels were located in North America where the association of
Skunk Works with Lockheed Martin was stronger.

Litigatin expert John Mackenzie of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind
OUT-LAW.COM, said that the case demonstrated the need to present
evidence in support of arguments in front of dispute resolution panels.

"This is another illustration that big brands have to be careful how
they present their case," he said. "Here they seemed to rely on previous
WIPO cases they had won, which obviously didn't get them very far. Brand
owners have to take each case on its own merits and make sure you have
enough evidence to support your case."

As with all domain dispute resolutions, though, either party can take
the case to a court after the dispute resolution process is complete.
"They could go to court, which would have little regard to the case
heard by the panellists," said Mackenzie. "The court they went to would
depend on the normal rules of jurisdiction, so it could be a US court or
a UK court."

see the ruling (11 pages):
http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/18073_ukskunkworks_appeal.pdf

http://www.out-law.com/page-8012

 

 

 

After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back. 




This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.

Feel free to link to this page!